A Few More Words About Iowa

Have I said how proud I am to be from Iowa? Yes, I truly am proud to say I'm a native Iowan. When the Iowa State Supreme Court issued its unanimous decision last Friday (see previous blog), it was just following a tradition of fairness and equality that was almost as old as the state.
Here are some things you might not know about Iowa:

• The state motto is, "Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain." Last Friday, the justices of the Supreme Court declared this meant everyone, not just straight people.
  
• The very first decision handed down by the Iowa State Supreme Court upheld the right of an ex-slave to have his freedom; they declared he was no longer his masters' property.
• In 1868, the Iowa State Supreme Court declared "separate but equal" education was against the law.
• In 1869, the Iowa State Supreme Court ruled that women could indeed practice law, and Arabella Mansfield was the first woman admitted to the Iowa Bar Association--the first of any state in the Union.
  
• In 1884, Iowa passed one of the first civil rights laws in the nation.

In its decision, the Iowa Supreme Court recognized the marriage contract for what it is--a civil contract between two people. The justices ignored the arguments brought before them in an effort to convince them to uphold the 1997 law: that "gay marriage" would undermine "traditional marriage", that only "traditional marriage" is a proper environment to raise children (the justices, in their infinite wisdom, pointed out that Iowa currently allows child molesters, child abusers, and violent felons to "traditionally wed"), that only "traditional marriage" promotes procreation (as if), that "traditional marriage" promotes stable opposite-sex relationships (I guess gay people are not entitled to stable relationships), and that the few people allowed to marry, the better off, financially, the state would be (totally ignoring the argument that allowing marriage equality will stimulate the economy!). The last argument, which dealt with religion, should have been laughed right out of the courtroom, but I guess the justices were too polite for that.
Because remember, we in the United States enjoy the separation of church and state. Our founding parents believed it was the right thing to do, and for over 200 years, the vast majority of Americans have agreed. I repeat: there IS a separation of church and state in this country.
Which brings me to the real point of this blog. Marriage is a civil contract between two people. Throughout history, marriage licenses have been issued for much the same reasons: property rights and protection of bloodlines. In this country, people who are married enjoy a plethora of federal and state rights--over 1,000 federal rights alone are available to married couples and denied to unmarried couples.
The couple gets a license from the state. They can then choose to have a civil ceremony (by a justice of the peace or whatever), or a religious ceremony. [Some churches, including the Unitarian Universalist Church, will perform a commitment ceremony for a couple even if they don't have the license.] The point is that religion plays no part in the issuance of the license from the state--there is no minister, rabbi, shaman, priest, pastor, ayatollah, or cleric sitting at the registry, signing licenses. Only a clerk or two.
For those who are getting their panties in a twist over the "demise of traditional marriage", I offer this helpful exercise. Instead of the word...marriage, substitute.....mortgage. Two people go to get a mortgage. They legally qualify (in marriage law, they would not be underage or siblings; for mortgages, they have money from a bank). They go to the state to get their mortgage registered. The state gives them the title (license) to a piece of land. They can then go to their minister, and ask if the house, on the piece of land, can be "blessed". Or not--they still are still legally registered with the state, and that's all that matters.
NOW---the question is: how does my mortgage affect your right to a mortgage? Does my having a mortgage diminish your mortgage? Are your children less safe because I have a mortgage with someone of the same sex? Are my children? Would you really even notice if I had a same-sex mortgage?
Marriage....mortgage. Contracts registered with the state.

As Goes Iowa, So Goes the Nation?

We can only hope the rest of the nation follows in the footsteps of my home state:

From The Des Moines Register:
April 3, 2009

"Today's ruling at a glance"
JEFF ECKHOFF

WHAT HAPPENED: Iowa Supreme Court justices ruled unanimously that Iowa Code section 595.2(1) is unconstitutional. The one-sentence law, passed in 1998, declares that “only a marriage between a male and a female is valid.”
WHAT IT DOES: The decision affirms the 2007 ruling by a Polk County judge in a lawsuit brought by six gay and lesbian couples. The couples all had been denied marriage licenses by the Polk County recorder’s office.
WHAT IT MEANS: Iowa soon will become the first Midwestern state, and the fourth nationwide, to allow same-sex marriages. The justices’ decision says their ruling “becomes effective upon issuance of procedendo,” a legal order that actual implements the decision announced Friday. Polk County officials say they expect that order to be issued in about three weeks. Marriage licenses will begin to be issued after that.
THE ARGUMENTS: In prior court proceedings, Polk County lawyers had offered five main rationales for the law banning gay marriages: to maintain traditional marriage, to promote the optimal environment for raising children, to promote procreation, to promote stability in opposite-sex relationships and to conserve state resources such as tax breaks.
Iowa justices rejected all arguments and concluded that none of the stated objectives of the law “are furthered in a substantial way by the exclusion of same-sex couples from civil marriage. Our equal protection clause requires more than has been offered to justify the continued existence of the same-sex marriage ban under the statute.”
WHAT IT MEANS FOR CHURCHES: The justices reiterate in Friday’s ruling “the freedom of a religious organization to define marriages it solemnizes as unions between a man and a woman.”
But “state government can have no religious views, either directly or indirectly through it’s legislation,” the opinion says. “As a result, civil marriage must be judged under our constitutional standards of equal protection and not under religious doctrines or the religious views of individuals.”
WHAT’S NEXT: A possible campaign to offset the ruling with an amendment to the state constitution. Such a change probably could not outlaw gay marriages, however, until 2012 at the earliest.